Creationism

[Caliban]

Better to Say Young-Earth Creationism is untenable because of modern scientific discoveries, Creationism would happily say that God created those sciences for people to discover.

Which one do you see as fiction and which as fact then?

No, I mean to say Creationism. It is a theological position--not a scientific one. I can supply evidence for my claim if you are interested.

 

[JIMINZ]

No, I mean to say Creationism. It is a theological position--not a scientific one. I can supply evidence for my claim if you are interested.

Your wrong on both counts, it's neither Theological, or Scientific.

It's TRUTH!

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

No, I mean to say Creationism. It is a theological position--not a scientific one. I can supply evidence for my claim if you are interested.

In which case you will be able to provide the modern scientific discoveries that make it untenable. I've never come across them.

 

[Caliban]

Your wrong on both counts, it's neither Theological, or Scientific.

It's TRUTH!

Okay.

 

[Caliban]

In which case you will be able to provide the modern scientific discoveries that make it untenable. I've never come across them.

I am happy to try. If you could tell me a claim or a prediction made by Creationists (that isn't' held by evolutionary scientists) that could be falsified if wrong, it will help me narrow down an example that relates more directly to your beliefs.

For example, if a tyrannosaurus fossil was found below or above the Cretaceous layer, that would be evidence which might falsify Evolutionary theory.

 

[BobRyan]

I am happy to try. If you could tell me a claim or a prediction made by Creationists (that isn't' held by evolutionary scientists) that could be falsified if wrong, it will help me narrow down an example that relates more directly to your beliefs.

That's easy -- abiogenesis is pure bunk -- that is a prediction of Creationists. In 1952 Urey and Miller attempted to artificially "simulate" what they thought abiogenesis could do to create life -- and it failed. that major fail still stands as "fail".

In fact various forms of it .. fail. It is not possible. It is not even science because there is no "property of matter" that would indicate that matter can self-organize into a living cell.

What is worse - there is no evidence or experiment that shows that a primitive earth bacteria could ever turn into a horse no matter how many billions of years you give it to try.

50,000 observed generations still make that same point.

 

[BobRyan]

No, I mean to say Creationism. It is a theological position--not a scientific one. I can supply evidence for my claim if you are interested.

No doubt that the Bible teaches the creation doctrine as the doctrine on origins.

No doubt that Moses was not setting up a lab, or providing a time machine so that "observations of God" would "Show God creating life on planet Earth"

 

[Caliban]

That's easy -- abiogenesis is pure bunk -- that is a prediction of Creationists. In 1952 Urey and Miller attempted to artificially "simulate" what they thought abiogenesis could do to create life -- and it failed. that major fail still stands as "fail".

In fact various forms of it .. fail. It is not possible. It is not even science because there is no "property of matter" that would indicate that matter can self-organize into a living cell.

What is worse - there is no evidence or experiment that shows that an primitive earth bacteria could ever turn into a horse no matter how many billions of years you give it to try.

50,000 observed generations still make that same point.

Maybe you didn't quite understand what I was asking. let me try again:
What is a scientific prediction that could prove your hypothesis incorrect. The scientific method sets out a hypothesis and seeks to invalidate it. If the null hypothesis is overturned, the hypothesis stands.

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe you didn't quite understand what I was asking. let me try again:
What is a scientific prediction that could prove your hypothesis incorrect. The scientific method sets out a hypothesis and seeks to invalidate it. If the null hypothesis is overturned, the hypothesis stands.

The prediction that abiogenesis is impossible - stands.

The prediction that all humans go back to Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve stands.

The prediction that the universe had a start - rather than "Stasis" eternal matter - stands.

The prediction that observation of 50,000 generations of bacteria will not show prokaryotes turning into eukaryotes over time... stands.

The prediction that biomolecules that can survive for 6000 years should still present in Dinosaur remains - stands.

Satan himself makes a claim of sorts in Matthew 4 when tempting Christ - he claims that if Christ is the Son of God - then the proof of it would be turning stone into bread. Apparently Satan also thinks that only God can make that abiogenesis idea work.

Just a few things that come to mind off the top of my head.

but in all fairness to this thread that is not the topic of the OP

in the OP the issue is "what does the Bible say"

If Moses was inspired to reveal this to his generation of Jews as a pattern, doesn't that make a really strong argument for young earth creationists, who believe in a literal Genesis? Its unusual for society to form around a cosmic pattern they don't actually, fundamentally believe in. That's their origin, their explanation that makes sense to them. I mean, what's more unbelievable; elohim made the world in six days and took a nap on the seventh, or antediluvian patriarchs living for centuries? That seems more unbelievable to me.

And i believe the point is correct - the Bible describes a 7 day creation week not only in Genesis 1-2 but also in legal code - in Ex 20:11

 

[Caliban]

No doubt that the Bible teaches the creation doctrine as the doctrine on origins.

No doubt that Moses was not setting up a lab, or providing a time machine so that "observations of God" would "Show God creating life on planet Earth"

Genesis is not a reflection of what happened, it is a literary reflection of what people THOUGHT happened.

 

[Caliban]

The prediction that abiogenesis is impossible - stands.

The prediction that all humans go back to Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve stands.

The prediction that the universe had a start - rather than "Stasis" eternal matter - stands.

The prediction that observation of 50,000 generations of bacteria will not show prokaryotes turning into eukaryotes over time... stands.

The prediction that biomolecules that can survive for 6000 years should still present in Dinosaur remains - stands.

Just a few things that come to mind off the top of my head.

Let's take them one at a time. Which one would you prefer starting with?

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis is not a reflection of what happened,

Yes it is.

it is a literary reflection of what people THOUGHT happened.

Not according to the Bible... not according to the NT writers. They state that what we read in scripture -- is what God said.

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe you didn't quite understand what I was asking. let me try again:
What is a scientific prediction that could prove your hypothesis incorrect. The scientific method sets out a hypothesis and seeks to invalidate it. If the null hypothesis is overturned, the hypothesis stands.

The prediction that abiogenesis is impossible - stands.

The prediction that all humans go back to Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve stands because the Bible identifies exactly two parents for all of mankind - so any DNA mechanism preserves the DNA of the mother plus a DNA mechanism that preserves the DNA of the father should show not many sources all over planet Earth - but rather just one man and one woman, (even allowing for some heteroplasmy).

The prediction that the universe had a start - rather than "Stasis" eternal matter - stands.

The prediction that observation of 50,000 generations of bacteria will not show prokaryotes turning into eukaryotes over time... stands.

The prediction that biomolecules that can survive for 6000 years should still present in Dinosaur remains - stands.

Satan himself makes a claim of sorts in Matthew 4 when tempting Christ - he claims that if Christ is the Son of God - then the proof of it would be turning stone into bread. Apparently Satan also thinks that only God can make that abiogenesis idea work.

Just a few things that come to mind off the top of my head.

but in all fairness to this thread that is not the topic of the OP

in the OP the issue is "what does the Bible say"

If Moses was inspired to reveal this to his generation of Jews as a pattern, doesn't that make a really strong argument for young earth creationists, who believe in a literal Genesis? Its unusual for society to form around a cosmic pattern they don't actually, fundamentally believe in. That's their origin, their explanation that makes sense to them. I mean, what's more unbelievable; elohim made the world in six days and took a nap on the seventh, or antediluvian patriarchs living for centuries? That seems more unbelievable to me.

And i believe the point is correct - the Bible describes a 7 day creation week not only in Genesis 1-2 but also in legal code - in Ex 20:11

Let's take them one at a time. Which one would you prefer starting with?

I am happy with each of them if that is what you mean.

But I would like to keep this thread as close to on-topic as we can.

 

[Caliban]

Yes it is.



Not according to the Bible... not according to the NT writers. They state that what we read in scripture -- is what God said.

I don't assume the Bible is true. The Hebrew Bible is a collection of ancient books. Their claims carry no weight with me.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't assume the Bible is true.

Many Christians here know the Bible to be true.

The Hebrew Bible is a collection of ancient books. Their claims carry no weight with me.

Well there are people from all sorts of backgrounds in this world. No question about that.

But have you ever read the Bible?

If so do you agree with the OP?

Here is an example of an atheist who taught evolution at a university in S. Africa

walter veith conversion story - Bing video

He too assumed the Bible was not true and more than this - he found enjoyment in getting Christian post-grad students in his lectures and ripping their faith to shreds.

Only to later be confronted himself with the truth of the Bible and then convert to Christianity.

There is a Jewish (not Christian) radio talk show host - Michael Medved
The Michael Medved Show - America's #1 Show on Pop Culture and Politics

I was listening to his radio program a couple of years ago in the car and he was interviewing an atheist guest whose company had the mission of helping Christians exit Christianity and join atheism.

He asked the lady that ran that company - "What is the number issue for atheists when they called in on the help line". She said that by far -- no matter how long someone had been an atheist - the number one complaint was "an inexplicable fear of hell"..

Most of us do not believe in the Easter bunny but we do not have an "inexplicable fear of the easter bunny".

John 16 says that God the Holy Spirit "convicts the World of sin and righteousness and judgment" ... He does not just "convict Christians" or just convict "former Christians".

 

[Caliban]

Many Christians here know the Bible to be true.

Correction: they believe the Bible to be true.

...have you ever read the Bible?

If so do you agree with the OP?

I began reading the Bible when I was eight. I am forty three now. I was believer my entire life until I hit forty. I was a deacon in the RCUS (Reformed Church in the United States. I have a degree in Religious Studies, I used to hold to the Three Forms of Unity, and I still know a bunch of Caedmons Call songs on guitar. I am failure with the Bible, Yes.

I don't share OP's understanding that "Moses was inspired." I think the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament are products of people who believed these things were true. I think they were wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't share OP's understanding that "Moses was inspired."

Well I question whether the OP author is arguing that we accept that the Bible is inspired. It appears to me that he does not.

But the actual text of the OP does not argue that point. Rather it argues "What does the text say".

My question for you is - do you agree with the OP statement on "what the text says".

I think the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament are products of people who believed these things were true. I think they were wrong.

Ok - I think we agree that this is your view.

My question is -- do you agree with the statements made in the OP about "what the text says"?

Which apparently you already answered ... here.

Gotcha--sorry about that. I think he believed in six day creation.

 

[BobRyan]

That isn't even what's at stake here. If you read my post, the argument is not another creationism: fact or fiction debate. Instead, this thread is about what is meant by six day creation. Moses himself believes, if he's even the author of the pentateuch, the world was created in six days. I just quoted the verse where Moses says God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Pretty much everyone ignores it in these arguments. What did Moses from the text believe about his own book? He was only a man (if he lived), but I think its conclusive he believed in a six day creation story.

I agree - the text says God created the world in a literal 7 day week. And as you quoted Ex 20:11 that also makes the same case "in legal code" as we find in Genesis 1-2. A literal 7 day creation week.

 

[Caliban]

My question for you is - do you agree with the OP statement on "what the text says".

If you are asking if I think Moses believed the world was something like a few thousand years old and that a god created it--I'd say yes.

 

[BobRyan]

If you are asking if I think Moses believed the world was something like a few thousand years old and that a god created it--I'd say yes.

ok thanks.

I don't think Moses gives an age like "6000 years" in what he wrote. But certainly he only allows for a few thousand years from Creation to the Exodus.